California v. Ciraolo

Notable Items:

Katz Test (Katz v. United States)
a Fourth Amendment search does not occur-even when the explicitly protected location of a house is concerned-unless

"the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search," and
"society [is] willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable."

Plaintiff / Appellant / Petitioner:
Defendant / Appellee / Respondent:
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: California v. Ciracolo (1986)

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated by aerial observation without a warrant from an altitude of 1,000 feet of a fenced-in backyard within the curtilage of a home.

Petitioner's Claim(s):

Respondent contends he has done all that can reasonably be expected to tell the world he wishes to maintain the privacy of his garden within the curtilage without covering his yard.
Such covering, he argues, would defeat its purpose as an outside living area; he asserts he has not "knowingly" exposed himself to aerial views.

Respondent's Claim(s):

The State argues that respondent has "knowingly exposed" his backyard to aerial observation, because all that was seen was visible to the naked eye from any aircraft flying overhead.

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held: Reversed. ... respondent's expectation that his garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable, and is not an expectation that society is prepared to honor.
Disposition: Reversed.

Material Facts:

A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

After the trial court denied respondent's motion to suppress the evidence of the search, respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of cultivation of marijuana.
The California Court of Appeal reversed, however, on the ground that the warrantless aerial observation of respondent's yard which led to the issuance of the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
... respondent's backyard marijuana garden was within the "curtilage" of his home, under Oliver v. United States
The court emphasized that the height and existence of the two fences constituted "objective criteria from which we may conclude he manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy by any standard."
... this focused observation was "a direct and unauthorized intrusion into the sanctity of the home" which violated respondent's reasonable expectation of privacy.
The California Supreme Court denied the State's petition for review.
We granted the State's petition for certiorari, 471 U.S. 1134 (1985).
We reverse. Page 476 U. S. 210

Rationale

Burger Majority Opinion (White, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor)

The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a "constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy." Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 389 U. S. 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).
Clearly -- and understandably -- respondent has met the test of manifesting his own subjective intent and desire to maintain privacy as to his unlawful agricultural pursuits.
We turn, therefore, to the second inquiry under Katz, i.e., whether that expectation is reasonable.
"[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly private' activity," but instead "whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment."
... the question remains whether naked-eye observation of the curtilage by police from an aircraft lawfully operating at an altitude of 1,000 feet violates an expectation of privacy that is reasonable.
"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz, supra, at 389 U. S. 351.
... we readily conclude that respondent's expectation that his garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable, and is not an expectation that society is prepared to honor.
The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.
A full description of the rationale is available below

Powell Dissent (Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun)

... the Court today ignores that warning in an opinion that departs significantly from the standard developed in Katz for deciding when a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred, I dissent.
[Part I: ]
In my view, the Court's holding rests on only one obvious fact, namely, that the airspace generally is open to all persons for travel in airplanes.
The Court does not explain why this single fact deprives citizens of their privacy interest in outdoor activities in an enclosed curtilage.
[Part II A: ]
... a standard that defines a Fourth Amendment "search" by reference to whether police have physically invaded a "constitutionally protected area" provides no real protection against surveillance techniques made possible through technology.
The Court's rejection of respondent's Fourth Amendment claim is curiously at odds with its purported reaffirmation of the curtilage doctrine, ....
The second question under Katz has been described as asking whether an expectation of privacy is "legitimate in the sense required by the Fourth Amendment."
[Part II B: ]
[Part III A: ]
The Court then implicitly acknowledges that society is prepared to recognize his expectation as reasonable with respect to ground-level surveillance, holding that the yard was within the curtilage, an area in which privacy interests have been afforded the "most heightened" protection.
Since Katz, we have consistently held that the presence or absence of physical trespass by police is constitutionally irrelevant to the question whether society is prepared to recognize an asserted privacy interest as reasonable.
The Court's holding, therefore, must rest solely on the fact that members of the public fly in planes and may look down at homes as they fly over them.
The Court does not explain why it finds this fact to be significant.
Travelers on commercial flights, as well as private planes used for business or personal reasons, normally obtain at most a fleeting, anonymous, and nondiscriminating glimpse of the landscape and buildings over which they pass.
... people do not "knowingly expos[e]'" their residential yards "`to the public'" merely by failing to build barriers that prevent aerial surveillance.
Yet the Court approves purposeful police surveillance of that activity and area similar to that approved in Knotts with respect to public activities and areas.
[Part III B: ]
The indiscriminate nature of aerial surveillance, illustrated by Officer Shutz' photograph of respondent's home and enclosed yard as well as those of his neighbors, poses "far too serious a threat to privacy interests in the home to escape entirely some sort of Fourth Amendment oversight."
[Part IV: ]
Rapidly advancing technology now permits police to conduct surveillance in the home itself, an area where privacy interests are most cherished in our society, without any physical trespass.
The Court fails to enforce that right or to give any weight to the longstanding presumption that warrantless intrusions into the home are unreasonable.

Full Recounting of Facts

On September 2, 1982, Santa Clara Police received an anonymous telephone tip that marijuana was growing in respondent's backyard.
... a 6-foot outer fence and a 10-foot inner fence completely enclosing the yard.
... secured a private plane and flew over respondent's house at an altitude of 1,000 feet, within navigable airspace ...
... readily identified marijuana plants 8 feet to 10 feet in height growing in a 15- by 25-foot plot in respondent's yard; ...
... they photographed the area with a standard 35mm camera.
On September 8, 1982, Officer Shutz obtained a search warrant on the basis of an affidavit describing the anonymous tip and their observations ....
The warrant was executed the next day, and 73 plants were seized; it is not disputed that these were marijuana.
After the trial court denied respondent's motion to suppress the evidence of the search, respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of cultivation of marijuana.
A list of the material facts is available above

Majority Full Argument

[Part I: See Full Recounting of Facts ]
[Part II: ]
The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a "constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy." Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 389 U. S. 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).
Clearly -- and understandably -- respondent has met the test of manifesting his own subjective intent and desire to maintain privacy as to his unlawful agricultural pursuits.
We turn, therefore, to the second inquiry under Katz, i.e., whether that expectation is reasonable.
"[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly private' activity," but instead "whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment."
... the question remains whether naked-eye observation of the curtilage by police from an aircraft lawfully operating at an altitude of 1,000 feet violates an expectation of privacy that is reasonable.
"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz, supra, at 389 U. S. 351.
... we readily conclude that respondent's expectation that his garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable, and is not an expectation that society is prepared to honor.
The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.
The core of the rationale is available above